He's also making up the rules on the BNP forum as he goes along, he has banned
English, Irish, Scottish and blonde jokes etc claiming that they are an insult to our people and anyone that posts jokes of that nature in future will recieve a ban.There was a comedian at the RWB who made these jokes and nobody minded, why should he? Jokes of this nature have been deleted from the forum except the ones making fun of the geordies, what has he got against geordies?
He is only meant to be on the forum to address legal issues, what have jokes got to do with legalities?

There was a post or two on a thread about Kevin Hughes. What I wanted to present at the time of the appeal was this which I got from my course books and asked a lecturer about a hypothetical case without mentioning some details or she would not have answered. "I would certainly question why his appeal was held before a single judge when it would normally be before three.
As Mr Hughes is undoubtedly on Legal Aid, he should now appeal again, this time to the House of Lords where he WILL get three judges who should
give him a much fairer hearing than the ordinary courts.
Anyone who has ever had anything to do with our legal system will know that it is a lottery. And an incredibly unfair and expensive lottery at
that. The bulk of the legal profession today are liberals and so any chance of a fair hearing for anyone remotely right-wing is unlikely. Whilst a judge is in theory supposed to be impartial, they are not. They are human and it is only natural that their own personalities and feelings enter into
almost everything. I think the other thing is that this is indeed a political trial and the original judge and the appeal judge would have been extremely aware of the Left-wing uproar has Mr.Hughes been acquitted.
The House of Lords is his next step and with Legal Aid she should be
permitted to proceed there. A different scenario entirely and he would not have to appear before them unless there were questions they wanted to ask him.
It will depend upon the case the barrister prepares which has to be presented to the Legal Aid Board first. The entire establishment and "the system" are against us."
The above shows how they abandon their members in trouble. Why did they not pursue the recommended course? The Kevin Hughes case can be read in many libraries especially law college ones so the truth is in the public domain. It is the people around Griffin who worry people as Conservative Democratic Alliance shows 1517, 1513 , 1514.http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/er7cDxuxbCD

There was a post or two on a thread about Kevin Hughes. What I wanted to present at the time of the appeal was this which I got from my course books and asked a lecturer about a hypothetical case without mentioning some details or she would not have answered. "I would certainly question why his appeal was held before a single judge when it would normally be before three.
As Mr Hughes is undoubtedly on Legal Aid, he should now appeal again, this time to the House of Lords where he WILL get three judges who should
give him a much fairer hearing than the ordinary courts.
Anyone who has ever had anything to do with our legal system will know that it is a lottery. And an incredibly unfair and expensive lottery at
that. The bulk of the legal profession today are liberals and so any chance of a fair hearing for anyone remotely right-wing is unlikely. Whilst a judge is in theory supposed to be impartial, they are not. They are human and it is only natural that their own personalities and feelings enter into
almost everything. I think the other thing is that this is indeed a political trial and the original judge and the appeal judge would have been extremely aware of the Left-wing uproar has Mr.Hughes been acquitted.
The House of Lords is his next step and with Legal Aid she should be
permitted to proceed there. A different scenario entirely and he would not have to appear before them unless there were questions they wanted to ask him.
It will depend upon the case the barrister prepares which has to be presented to the Legal Aid Board first. The entire establishment and "the system" are against us."
The above shows how they abandon their members in trouble. Why did they not pursue the recommended course? The Kevin Hughes case can be read in many libraries especially law college ones so the truth is in the public domain. It is the people around Griffin who worry people as Conservative Democratic Alliance shows 1517, 1513 , 1514.http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/er7cDxuxbCD

The people who tried to help were told to mind their own business as the party had everything in hand. But there were things that could have been done for him. As for trying to stir, I am trying to expose the way they don't protect their members. This case is the best example I know. Kevin is due out this month.
You must have realised by now that the BNP treat people very badly and make enemies of people who try to help them when there is no need to. I am just another of those "many."
I meant to post it here originally but could not find the thread, then when I found the thread I did not know how to delete the previous two as I am new to this.

WRONG..he hasnt wrote any articles for the website in months because hes too busy.. a bit like the chairman really ..is he no longer a columnist now ? or all the others who havent written an article in months? are you trying to stir now?